4.7 Article

The heat-shock protein-70-induced renoprotective effect is partially mediated by CD4(+)CD25(+)Foxp3(+) regulatory T cells in ischemia/reperfusion-induced acute kidney injury

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 85, 期 1, 页码 62-71

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2013.277

关键词

acute kidney injury; heat-shock protein-70; immunomodulation; regulatory T cells

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent reports suggest the presence of heat-shock protein (HSP)-reactive T cells with a regulatory phenotype in various inflammatory diseases. To test whether HSP exerts renoprotective effects through regulatory T cells (Tregs), ischemia/reperfusion injury was done with or without heat preconditioning in mice. Splenocytes from heat-preconditioned mice had Treg expansion and a reduced proliferative response upon mitogenic stimulus. T cells from heat-preconditioned mice failed to reconstitute postischemic injury when adoptively transferred to T cell-deficient nu/nu mice in contrast to those from control mice. Tregs were also increased in heat-preconditioned ischemic kidneys. Depleting Tregs before heat preconditioning abolished the renoprotective effect, while adoptive transfer of these cells back into Treg-depleted mice partially restored the beneficial effect of heat preconditioning. Inhibition of HSP70 by quercetin suppressed Treg expansion, as well as renoprotective effects. Transferring Tregs in quercetin-treated heat-preconditioned mice partially restored the beneficial effect of heat preconditioning. The specificity of immune cell HSP70 in renoprotection was confirmed by partial restoration of kidney injury when T cells from HSP70-deficient heat preconditioned mice were adoptively transferred to nu/nu mice. Thus, the renoprotective effect of HSP70 may be partially mediated by a direct immunomodulatory effect through Tregs. Better understanding of immunomodulatory mechanisms of various stress proteins might facilitate discovery of new preventive strategies in acute kidney injury.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据